There is nothing wrong with Homosexuality, so why shouldn't they be allowed to have custody of children like heterosexuals?

It's been proven with 21 studies that children with homosexual parents are more empathetic to socialites problems and are less like to stereotype people because of their genders.(1) As of now courts are favoring Heterosexual over homosexual parents even if it isn't in the child's best interest. (2) A number of studies in recent years have purported to show that children raised in gay and lesbian households fare no worse than those reared in traditional families. (3) and Contrary to popular belief child molesters are overwhelmingly heterosexual males --95% according to LAPD figures; 97% according to FBI figures.(4) There's no good evidence that same-sex parents are any less fit than heterosexual parents, and some of them may provide subtle advantages. The only reason many studies show children raised by homosexual have emotional problem is because of them getting picked on by bigots. (5)

As I will be taking the negative position I will be arguing that homosexuals should not be allowed to have custody of children. I thank my opponent for starting this discussion/debate and I will follow up her opening remarks with some observations and rebuttals.

===Observations===

My opponent declares based on their first source that children raised under a homosexual couples are more likely to be more accepting to social diversity.

Next, my opponent says even if it isn't the child's wish, heterosexual parents are generally chosen over homosexual parents.

Additionally, my opponent says that children in homosexual households fair no differently than their heterosexual counterparts.

My opponent then brings a comment about child molesters generally being heterosexual.

Finally, my opponent makes a statement saying there is no good evidence that homosexual parents are less fit.

===Rebuttals===

To start out I'll attack my opponent's first point. It is only logical that children of these couples will be more inclined to accept social diversity due to how their own parents are homosexual. To be less accepting would mean to be less accepting of their own parents. Based on this logic, it is due to the parent's background, not their intent, to have their children more accepting to social diversity. If the parenting was the direct cause of the social acceptance of the children, then my opponent's point would be valid, however it is due to the circumstances and the environment the children live in that this is made possible. Therefore, my opponent's first point is negated.

Next on to the next point, you say courts are choosing heterosexual parents and you say even if it isn't in the child's best interest. Nowhere in your source does it say that children don't want that, in fact it says that the court does this in the best interest of the child and it says only SOME have sexual orientation bias. Therefore, this point is also negated.

Finally, your third point is completely negated because the source you based your point on contradicts it: "Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light."

On to your next point, you start talking about child molesters mostly being mostly heterosexual. However, there are a much smaller percentage of homosexual men compared to heterosexual men. Additionally how many of these heterosexual men are actually sexual offenders since that is what this debate revolves around currently?

Finally, I can refute your last claim with an article from NARTH[1]: ""Children navigate the developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better in academic tasks at school, have fewer emotional disorders and become better functioning adults when they are reared by dual-gender parents." And that's just one piece of information. The point is that there is evidence that suggests that homosexual parents are less fit thus your last point is ultimately negated as well.

Using Dean Byrd's "research" is like using Paul Cameron's "research" with anything homosexual-related topic, pointless drivel. Taking studies out of its context to further a certain agenda of theirs. NARTH - National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. George Rekers? Seen him on the Rachel Maddow show? Funny stuff. Misquoting other peoples' research and twisting it. Typical of NARTH studies.